Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`GREGORY P. STONE (State Bar No. 78329)
`gregory.stone@mto.com
`STEVEN M. PERRY (State Bar No. 106154)
`steven.perry@mto.com
`ELIZABETH A. LAUGHTON (State Bar No. 305800)
`elizabeth.laughton@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
`Telephone:
`(213) 683-9100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 687-3702
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
` Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date:
`July 11, 2019
`Time:
`1:30 pm
`Judge:
`Lucy H. Koh
`Ctrm.:
` 8, 4th Floor
`
`
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation; DEJAN MARKOVIC,
`PH.D., an individual; and CHENG C. WANG,
`PH.D., an individual,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 1 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`To Plaintiff Konda Technologies, Inc., and its counsel of record:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 11, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom No. 8 of the above-captioned Court, located at 4th Floor, 280
`South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Defendant Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Flex Logix”)
`will, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), move the Court for an Order dismissing
`with prejudice all Counts of Konda Technologies, Inc.’s (“Konda Tech”) First Amended
`Complaint in this action that are asserted against Flex Logix.
`Specifically, Flex Logix moves for an Order dismissing with prejudice:
`[1]
`Konda Tech’s Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action because those Causes of
`Action fail to state a claim for patent infringement due to the invalidity of each of the patents
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102;
`[2]
`Portions of Konda Tech’s Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action
`because those Causes of Action do not plead facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for indirect
`or willful patent infringement;
`[3]
`Konda Tech’s First Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices pursuant to
`California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. as preempted and as barred by the
`statute of limitations; and
`[4]
`Konda Tech’s Ninth Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets as
`barred by the statute of limitations and for failure to plead the use of reasonable efforts to maintain
`the secrecy of the alleged trade secrets.
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion; the attached Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities; all other materials supporting this Motion or the Reply brief filed in
`support thereof; all pleadings on file in this matter; and any other materials or arguments the Court
`may receive at or before the hearing on this Motion.1
`
`
`1 Defined terms in this Motion are also used in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`Page 2 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`DATED: March 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory P. Stone
`GREGORY P. STONE
`
`By:
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant FLEX LOGIX
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`-2-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 3 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE .....................................1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................1
`A.
`The Court Should Dismiss Konda Tech’s Patent Claims Against Flex Logix ..........1
`B.
`The Court Should Dismiss Konda Tech’s Non-Patent Claims Against Flex
`Logix ..........................................................................................................................2
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................3
`A.
`Konda Tech’s Patent Infringement Allegations .........................................................3
`B.
`The ’611 Patent, the ’958 Patent, and the ’904 Patent and Their
`Relationship to Each Other ........................................................................................3
`Konda Tech’s Allegations of Misappropriation of Trade Secrets ..............................4
`C.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................................................................6
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................7
`I.
`THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS KONDA TECH’S INFRINGEMENT
`CLAIMS BASED ON THE ’611 PATENT, ’958 PATENT, AND ’904 PATENT
`BECAUSE THESE PATENTS ARE INDISPUTABLY INVALID .....................................7
`A.
`The ’611, ’958, and ’904 Patents Contain the Same Disclosures ..............................7
`B.
`The Publication of the Konda PCT ............................................................................7
`C.
`The Konda PCT Anticipates Each of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 Patents .....................9
`D.
`This Court May Properly Invalidate the ’611 Patent, ’958 Patent, and ’904
`Patent at this Time ....................................................................................................11
`The ’611 Patent, ’958 Patent, and ’904 Patent Are Unquestionably Invalid ...........12
`E.
`KONDA TECH’S INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS ARE
`INADEQUATELY PLED AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED ............................................14
`THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS KONDA TECH’S MISAPPROPRIATION OF
`TRADE SECRETS CLAIM .................................................................................................15
`A.
`Konda Tech’s Claim of Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Is Barred by the
`Statute of Limitations ...............................................................................................16
`Konda Tech Fails to Allege Reasonable Efforts to Maintain the Secrecy of
`Its Alleged Trade Secrets .........................................................................................19
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`II.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 4 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 5 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS KONDA TECH’S UNFAIR BUSINESS
`PRACTICES CLAIM ..........................................................................................................20
`A.
`Konda Tech’s UCL Claim Is Preempted by Federal Patent Law.............................20
`B.
`Konda Tech’s UCL Claim Is Preempted by CUTSA ..............................................21
`C.
`Konda Tech’s Unfair Business Practices Claim Is Also Barred by the
`Statute of Limitations ...............................................................................................21
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................22
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 5 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Alta Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`343 F. Supp. 3d 868 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .......................................................................................21
`
`AntiCancer, Inc. v. CellSight Techs., Inc.,
`2012 WL 3018056 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2012) .............................................................................20
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc.,
`98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................................7
`
`Arunachalam v. Apple, nc.,
`2018 WL 5023378 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018) ......................................................................18, 19
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .....................................................................................................................6
`
`Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`2012 WL 2343163 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) .............................................................................15
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .....................................................................................................................6
`
`Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................................................6
`
`Bullwinkle v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`2013 WL 5718451 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) ..............................................................................6
`
`CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc.,
`2015 WL 3945875 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) ...........................................................................14
`
`Chestnut v. Juel,
`1997 WL 68538 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 1997) ................................................................................12
`
`City of Royal Oak Ret. Sys. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`880 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .......................................................................................6
`
`Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc. v. HTC Am. Inc.,
`2018 WL 1367324 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) ...........................................................................15
`
`Ex Parte Xiaoming Bao & Stephen M. Allen,
`2017 WL 1397726 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) ............................................................................13
`
`Gorski v. Gymboree Corp.,
`2014 WL 3533324 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2014) ............................................................................12
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`-iii-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 6 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Grassi v. Moody’s Investor’s Servs.,
`2011 WL 3498184, at 8* (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011), aff’d, 540 F.App’x 737 (9th
`Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................................................6
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................................6
`
`Halton Co. v. Streivor, Inc.,
`2010 WL 2077203 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2010) ...........................................................................20
`
`Hitachi Kokusai Elec. Inc. v. ASM Int’l, N.V,
`2018 WL 3537166 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018) ............................................................................14
`
`Hyatt v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`797 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................13
`
`Hott v. City of San Jose,
`92 F. Supp. 2d 996 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ...........................................................................................6
`
`JAT Wheels, Inc. v. DB Motoring Grp., Inc.,
`2016 WL 9453798 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016) ............................................................................20
`
`Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc.,
`2013 WL 4427254 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013) ...........................................................................19
`
`MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`869 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................19
`
`Micrel Inc. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`2005 WL 6426678 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2005) .............................................................................19
`
`Minor v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc.,
`182 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .........................................................................................6
`
`Montes v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`2010 WL 11597507 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2010) ..........................................................................21
`
`Moran v. Wash. Mut. Bank,
`2012 WL 12920636 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012) ...........................................................................21
`
`NetApp, Inc. v. Nimble Storage, Inc.,
`41 F. Supp. 3d 816 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .........................................................................................21
`
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Second Rule LLC,
`2009 WL 10668158 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2009) ...........................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 7 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Portnoy v. CIBA Vision Corp.,
`2008 WL 5505518 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2008) ...........................................................................16
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 746 (9th Cir. 2006) ....................................................................................................3, 6
`
`Select Controls v. American Electronic Components, Inc.,
`2008 WL 216612 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) ...............................................................................11
`
`Sims v. Wholers,
`2011 WL 3584455 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011) ...........................................................................16
`
`Stanford Hosp. & Clinics v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co.,
`2012 WL 694743 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012) ...............................................................................16
`
`Summit Mach. Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Victor CNC Sys., Inc.,
`7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................20
`
`Tech Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................7
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................8
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2018 WL 2047553 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018) .......................................................................14, 15
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Logitech, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6025597 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2018) ...........................................................................15
`
`Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art,
`592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................16
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .....................................................................................15
`
`Wishnev v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.,
`162 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .........................................................................................6
`
`Zanze v. Snelling Servs., LLC,
`412 F. App’x 994 (9th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................21
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ...................................................................................................................8, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .......................................................................................................................8, 12
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`-v-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 8 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ..............................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .............................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ........................................................................................................................3, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ................................................................................................................................15
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 .................................................................................................20, 21
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 .......................................................................................................21
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3426(1)(d) .............................................................................................................19
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7 ...................................................................................................................21
`
`RULES - OTHER
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................ passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .............................................................................................................................12
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(v) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) ................................................................................................................13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c) ...........................................................................................................................13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(i) ............................................................................................................................13
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`MPEP § 201.07 ..................................................................................................................................7
`
`MPEP § 2163.07(b). ...........................................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 9 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Konda Tech’s original complaint in this action was filed on December 17, 2018. Dkt. 1.
`Flex Logix moved to dismiss that complaint in its entirety. Dkt. 21. In response, Konda Tech
`sought to amend its complaint. Dkt. 26; Dkt. 28-1. The parties stipulated that Konda Tech could
`file an amended complaint, and Flex Logix’s motion to dismiss was dismissed as moot. Dkt. 30.
`Konda Tech filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 4, 2019. Dkt. 31. Flex Logix
`now moves to dismiss the seven causes of action asserted against it in the FAC.1
`The Court Should Dismiss Konda Tech’s Patent Claims Against Flex Logix
`A.
`The FAC alleges that Flex Logix infringes five patents purportedly assigned to Konda
`Tech, a company founded by Dr. Venkat Konda in 2007. See Dkt. 31 (FAC), Counts 2-6, ¶ 13.
`Dr. Konda is the sole named inventor on each of the five asserted patents. See id. Exs. 4-8. The
`FAC alleges that Konda Tech’s patents generally relate to “field-programmable gate array
`(‘FPGA’) routing fabric” and “interconnection networks technology.” See id. ¶ 13.
`Konda Tech’s patent claims are deficient in numerous respects. First, three of the patents
`asserted by Konda Tech (specifically, U.S. Patent 8,898,611 (“the ’611 patent”); U.S. Patent
`9,529,958 (“the ’958 patent”); and U.S. Patent 10,050,904 (“the ’904 patent”)) are invalid in view
`of one of Konda Tech’s own prior patent publications. The invalidity of these patents can be
`straightforwardly determined by a review of Konda Tech’s complaint in combination with Konda
`Tech’s own patent applications and patent publications, which are judicially noticeable at this
`stage. In brief, the disclosures of these three patents were made publicly available more than one
`year prior to the earliest possible priority date for each patent, rendering each of the patents
`indisputably invalid. The Court may properly dismiss Konda Tech’s patent infringement claims
`based on invalidity of the asserted patents at this stage because no further proceedings are
`necessary in order to permit this Court to conclude that each of these patents is invalid.
`
`
`1 Konda Tech’s FAC purports to add two additional defendants, Dr. Dejan Markovic and Dr.
`Cheng Wang. These defendants were not served until a few days before the filing of this motion.
`The present motion is brought solely on behalf of Defendant Flex Logix.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`Page 10 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`The sole disputed issue is whether the disclosures of the patents were made available to the
`public under the governing regulation and thus constitute prior art—a pure question of law. There
`is no reason to delay—this Court can and should dismiss Counts Three, Four, and Six of Konda
`Tech’s complaint due to the invalidity of each of the three patents asserted in those claims.
`Second, Konda Tech fails to plead a plausible claim for indirect or willful infringement
`under Twomby and Iqbal with respect to any of the five asserted patents. Konda Tech’s
`allegations rely on vague generalities and recitations of statutory language instead of specific
`factual allegations. Konda Tech’s indirect and willful patent infringement claims are clearly
`inadequate and should be dismissed.
`The Court Should Dismiss Konda Tech’s Non-Patent Claims Against Flex
`B.
`Logix
`
`Third, Konda Tech’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim is barred by the statute of
`limitations. Konda Tech had actual and/or inquiry notice of the alleged misappropriation within
`the 3-year statute of limitations period for such claims, but elected to wait to file suit until after the
`limitations period had run. The running of the statute of limitations is manifest from Konda
`Tech’s own complaint and other materials judicially noticeable at this stage. Furthermore, Konda
`Tech has failed to adequately plead the use of reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its
`alleged trade secret information. To the contrary, Konda Tech’s complaint clearly alleges the
`voluntary disclosure of any purported trade secrets. Accordingly, the misappropriation claim
`should be dismissed with prejudice.
`Fourth, Konda Tech’s UCL claim is predicated solely on the alleged “tortious behavior”
`otherwise pled in the complaint. FAC ¶ 34. The only “tortious behavior” by Flex Logix that is
`alleged in the complaint is patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. Because
`Konda Tech’s UCL claim against Flex Logix is based solely on alleged patent infringement or
`misappropriation of trade secrets, the UCL claim is preempted by federal patent law and by
`California’s statute governing trade secrets claims. The UCL claim is also clearly barred by the
`applicable statute of limitations.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 11 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Flex Logix’s motion to dismiss is based on Konda Tech’s FAC, on publicly available
`patent applications and publications, and on the February 21, 2019 Declaration of Venkat Konda
`(“Konda Declaration”) filed in this matter (Dkt. 27). The Court may take judicial notice of each of
`these documents in considering this motion. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442
`F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) (filed currently
`herewith).
`Konda Tech’s Patent Infringement Allegations
`A.
`Konda Tech alleges that Flex Logix infringes five patents assigned to Konda Tech. See
`FAC, Counts 2-6. The FAC alleges direct infringement by Flex Logix under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`as well as induced and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c), respectively.
`Id.
`
`With respect to Konda Tech’s induced infringement allegations, the FAC states that “Flex
`Logix’s website is replete with written directions instructing users on how to use Flex Logix’s
`Accused Products in an infringing manner” and references purported “detailed documentation
`instructing users on how to use [the] Accused FPGA Devices in an infringing manner.” See, e.g.,
`FAC ¶¶ 60-61 (allegations regarding ’523 patent). The complaint provides no additional
`specificity regarding these alleged “written directions” and “detailed documentation.”2 For
`alleged contributory infringement, the complaint simply parrots portions of the statute and
`provides no factual allegations in support. See, e.g., id. ¶ 59 (allegations regarding ’523 patent).
`Konda Tech includes no specific factual allegations in support of its claims of willful
`infringement. See, e.g., id. ¶ 67 (allegations regarding ’523 patent).
`The ’611 Patent, the ’958 Patent, and the ’904 Patent and Their Relationship
`B.
`to Each Other
`
`Konda Tech alleges that Flex Logix infringes the ’611 patent, the ’958 patent, and the ’904
`patent. FAC, Count 3 (’611 patent), Count 4 (’958 patent), Count 6 (’904 patent); FAC Exs. 5, 6,
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 12 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`8. All three of these patents belong to the same family. The ’904 patent is a continuation of the
`’958 patent, which is a continuation of the ’611 patent. See id. (Related U.S. Application Data).
`Each of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 patents ultimately claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`Patent Applications 61/252,603 (“the ’603 provisional application”) and 61/252,609 (“the ’609
`provisional application”). See id. Exs. 5, 6, 8 (Related U.S. Application Data). The ’611 patent is
`characterized as a continuation-in-part with respect to the ’603 and ’609 provisional applications.
`See id. Ex. 5 (’611 patent) at 1:8-21. Both the ’603 and ’609 provisional applications were filed
`on October 16, 2009, which is the earliest priority date possible for each of the ’611, ’958, and
`’904 patents. See id. Exs. 5, 6, 8 (Related U.S. Application Data).
`The disclosures of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 patents correspond directly to the two
`provisional applications to which they claim priority. For example, Figures 1-7 of the ’611, ’958,
`and ’904 patents (FAC Exs. 5, 6, 8) match Figures 1-7 of the ’603 provisional (RJN Ex. 2); and
`Figures 8-10 of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 patents match Figures 1-3 of the ’609 provisional (RJN
`Ex. 3). The text describing Figures 1-10 of the ’611 ’958, and ’904 patents is also the same as that
`in the corresponding provisional applications with appropriate updating to reflect different
`numbering of Figures 8-10 in the ’611 patent, which were Figures 1-3 in the ’609 provisional.
`Konda Tech’s Allegations of Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
`C.
`Konda Tech generally alleges that Flex Logix founders, Drs. Dejan Markovic and Cheng
`Wang, while engaged in research at UCLA, “employed subterfuge and deceit to gain access to
`Konda Tech IP, develop their fraudulent credibility in the technology through publications based
`on Konda Tech IP, and then used Konda Tech IP to launch their own company—Flex Logix.”
`FAC ¶ 28. According to the FAC, Dr. Konda began to disclose the allegedly trade secret
`information to Drs. Markovic and/or Wang (and others) some time in 2009 and ending some time
`prior to January 2014. Id. ¶¶ 15-16, 23-24, 210. Specifically, Konda Tech alleges that Dr. Konda
`made a presentation on its technology in October 2009 to “UCLA’s Institute of Technology
`Advancement (‘ITA’).” Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Konda Tech alleges that Dr. Markovic falsely represented
`
`
`2 Konda Tech also cites to Exhibits 9-14 of the complaint but provides no allegations regarding the
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`
`
`-4-
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 13 of 31 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2009
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 38 Filed 03/18/19 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`to Konda Tech that the ITA might be able to “fund Konda Tech to bring Konda Tech’s IP to the
`market.” Id. ¶ 185.3 Konda Tech also alleges that Dr. Konda gave “a seminar on the technology
`to Dr. Markovic’s students” in October 2009, which Dr. Wang attended. Id. ¶ 16. Konda Tech
`does not allege that any of the individuals in attendance at that presentations had agreed to be
`subject to any confidentiality restrictions.
`Konda Tech also alleges that Dr. Markovic submitted certain proposals to DARPA
`containing Konda Tech IP. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Konda Tech alleges that Dr. Markovic incorporated the
`“Konda Tech IP” in the DARPA proposals “from the then published Konda Tech WIPO patent
`applications.” Id. ¶ 17.4 Konda Tech identifies no alleged trade secrets in any DARPA proposals.
`The FAC further alleges that as of January 2014, Dr. Konda was aware that Drs. Markovic
`and Wang either had formed or were in the process of forming a startup company in the FPGA
`space. Specifically, Konda Tech alleges that in January 2014, Dr. Konda was aware that Drs.
`Markovic and Wang were “looking for funding for their separate startup” (which eventually
`become Flex Logix) and that Dr. Markovic stated to Dr. Konda in January 2014 that “he may need
`to license Konda Tech IP for [that] separate startup.” Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis in original). The FAC
`alleges that Drs. Markovic and Wang co-founded Flex Logix in February 2014. Id. ¶ 29. Konda
`Tech does not identify any specific wrongful conduct by either Drs. Markovic and Wang or by
`Flex Logix allegedly occurring after February 2014. Konda Tech suggests that it did not discover
`the allegedly improper use of “Konda Tech IP” until December 2015. See id. ¶¶ 202, 30.